RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowing the claim of set off was upheld by the successive appellate authorities on. On reference u/s 256(1) of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court held that Section 10(27) of the Act excluded term only the income derived from a business of livestock breeding or poultry or dairy farming. The said section did not exclude the business

M/S TDK INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

256/- Sale of ferrite for consumption 63,11,28,244/- The assessee filed objections before the DRP and DRP after hearing the assessee passed an order u/s 144C(5) of the Act directing the AO/TPO to take 12,54,93,154/- as arms length price for Intra Group Services. Accordingly, the final order was passed by the AO making

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act. We observe that though the above decision has been rendered in the context of disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested towards tax free income but the same analogy is applicable for considering the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore we are inclined to hold that 17 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. A.R. STANCHEM (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

256(2) of the Act : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that the assessees have fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 35CCA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 6AAA of the Income-tax Rules for deduction of the amount donated to the approved society, which

SHRI SANTANU SANYAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

disallowing exemption under Section 10(38) on long terms capital gains of Rs. 2,30,238/- from of sale of equity share and equity-oriented fund, while giving effect to the Impugned Order. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 41/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Santanu Sanyal. 9. That the Ld. AO erred on facts

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,69,434 was being added back. In view of the rejection of the appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80-IA of Rs.6,18,17,507 and the disallowance of the above-referred sum of Rs.2,69,434 and a further disallowance of Rs.55,256 u/s 40(a)(ia), there appeared a total income of Rs.6

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance of reimbursement of ESOP. 4. In the present appeal, we are not taking up the facts in detail because we are not dealing these issues on merits. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It has filed a manual appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance of reimbursement of ESOP. 4. In the present appeal, we are not taking up the facts in detail because we are not dealing these issues on merits. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It has filed a manual appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

256/-\nSale of ferrite for consumption\n63,11,28,244/-\nThe assessee filed objections before the DRP and DRP after hearing the assessee\npassed an order u/s 144C(5) of the Act directing the AO/TPO to take 12,54,93,154/-\nas arms length price for Intra Group Services. Accordingly, the final order was passed\nby the AO making

KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowing the slim oIRs.I,344 It/ s 14A of the income lax Act, 1961. ITA No. 877 & 878/KOL/2025 Khaitan Winding Wire Private Limited; A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 8. That the Id. DCIT erred in charging interest 01 Rs. 9,35,478 u/ s. 234B of the income Ta-x Act, 1961 which is not chargeable in this case

KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowing the slim oIRs.I,344 It/ s 14A of the income lax Act, 1961. ITA No. 877 & 878/KOL/2025 Khaitan Winding Wire Private Limited; A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 8. That the Id. DCIT erred in charging interest 01 Rs. 9,35,478 u/ s. 234B of the income Ta-x Act, 1961 which is not chargeable in this case

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,DCIT, CIR. 8(1) vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside

GEM FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside